APA Convention 2015

Join SCN/Division 40 and be part of the APA 2015 Convention

Confirmed Invited Speakers

It's not too early to start planning for APA 2015! Whether you're a seasoned professional, early career psychologist, or trainee, the Society for Clinical Neuropsychology is designing programming with YOU in mind. Speakers already confirmed:

Donald Stuss, PhD, ABPP-CN
Ontario Brain Institute

Kathleen Welsh-Bohmer, PhD
Duke University School of Medicine

George Prigatano, PhD, ABPP-CN
Barrow Neurological Institute

Morris Moscovitch, PhD
University of Toronto

Angela Troyer, PhD
Baycrest Health Sciences

August 6-9, 2015 -- Toronto, ON
www.div40.org | www.facebook.com/division40

Society for Clinical Neuropsychology (APA Division 40) Early Career Award

The Society for Clinical Neuropsychology (APA Division 40) is accepting applications for the Robert A. and Phyllis Levitt Early Career Award in Neuropsychology. Eligible candidates are APA member psychologists not more than ten years postdoctoral degree, who have made a distinguished contribution to neuropsychology in research, scholarship, and/or clinical work. 

Application requirements:  A letter of nomination and one supporting letter (from a nationally-known neuropsychologist who is familiar with the candidate’s work and its impact on the field) should be included.  The nominee should also send a (1) a CV, (2) three supporting documents that provide evidence of national/international recognition (e.g., major publications, research grants, assessment, clinical, or teaching techniques, treatment protocols), and (3) a 500-word statement describing professional accomplishments, personal long-term goals, and future challenges and directions in the field of neuropsychology that they wish to address.  

Application procedure:  All materials provided by applicant are to be submitted electronically to Michael Basso, Chair, SCN Awards Committee, at michael-basso@utulsa.edu. Please submit all application materials in a single .pdf file. The letter of nomination and supporting letters may be included in the application file, or e-mailed directly to Dr. Basso. 

Application deadline:  October 25, 2014

Award:  The awardee will receive $1,000 and may be invited to give an address at the 2015 APA Convention in Toronto.

 

Apportionment Ballots

Neil Pliskin, PhD 

Neil Pliskin, PhD

President, Society for Clinical Neuropsychology

In a few weeks you will receive an apportionment ballot from APA. This is the method that determines division and state representation on APA’s Council of Representatives. You will be provided with 10 votes for allocation, and I strongly encourage you to allocate ALL of your votes for SCN/Division 40 (or at least 6/10) so that clinical neuropsychology can maintain its strong representation in the APA Council.

Although various issues confront our field as a whole, we know that reimbursement for assessment and treatment services is one area that we can all agree demands more attention from APA, along with other issues related to specialty practice.  Apportionment of ballots is the way that we get neuropsychology’s voice at the table.  Representation by APA on national healthcare issues is one of the biggest ways we have of influencing the process, and the number of representatives to council we have is essential to effective influence.  Our council members have been doing an excellent job representing our interests, but there is indeed strength in numbers, and SCN is well-positioned to gain a better foothold within APA. I strongly urge you to allocate your votes for SCN/Division 40 to maintain and hopefully increase our representation within APA. Remember, every vote counts!

Nominations for Fellows

Nomination to become an APA Fellow is an honor that recognizes evidence of unusual and outstanding contribution to or performance in the field of psychology that has had impact beyond a local, state, or regional level (i.e., national or international impact). Election as a Fellow is an honor not only for the individual but for the Division as well, and we welcome the nomination of outstanding division members for this distinction who have made substantial contributions to the field of neuropsychology.

Criteria: Evidence of unusual and outstanding contributions in the field of neuropsychology may be demonstrated in diverse ways reflecting the diversity of career and practice roles performed by neuropsychologists. Supporting letters and the candidate’s self-statement should clearly and specifically identify the candidates’ unusual and outstanding qualifications that have advanced the field, and should not be summary statements about the candidate’s general competency. Examples of contributions in Clinical Neuropsychology of interest to the Committee include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Supporting specialty recognition through board certification in Neuropsychology (e.g., ABPP/ABCN)
• A record of scientific and/or clinical accomplishments published in respected peer reviewed journals
• Authorship or editorship of a major psychology textbook(s)
• Federal grant support
• Senior level lectureships/invited presentations
• Journal editorial or reviewer responsibilities
• Elected and volunteer positions in professional or academic organizations
• Evidence of outstanding teaching and/or innovation in clinical neuropsychology
• History of mentorship of students and early career colleagues
• Development of innovative therapeutic applications
• Other evidence of outstanding contributions that have a national or international impact

Nominations of Initial Fellows: The nomination procedure for an SCN member applying for Fellowship is outlined on the division website listed at the end of this notice. Application requires the completion of a "Uniform Fellow Blank," which is available on the SCN website.  A minimum of three endorsement letters are required, preferably from current APA Fellows who can address the nominee’s accomplishments in the area of neuropsychology.  Other requisite supporting materials include a current vita, a listing of the nominee's publications with "R" for refereed indicated, and the nominee's self-statement setting forth the accomplishments that warrant Fellow status in SCN. SCN strongly encourages women and minority members to apply for Fellowship.  

Nominations of Current Fellows: APA Members who are already Fellows in other Divisions may also become Fellows in SCN/Division 40. The same nomination materials as are required for initial fellow appointments must be submitted. Nominees should demonstrate their specific accomplishments in the area of neuropsychology.

Submission of Materials: All nomination materials should be completed and submitted to the Division's Fellowship Committee Chair listed below (not APA Central Office) by December 1, preferably as electronic pdf or Word files. Those nominees supported by the SCN Fellows Committee will be forwarded to the APA Fellows Committee for consideration. Successful nominations are announced in August the following year after the APA annual meeting. Nomination materials can be obtained from the APA website listed below.

D40 Fellows url: http://www.div40.org/Committee_Activities_Pages/fellows.htm

APA Fellow Forms url: http://www.apa.org/membership/fellows/index.aspx

A John McSweeny, JD, PhD

Department of Psychology MS#948
The University of Toledo
2801 W. Bancroft Street
Toledo, OH 43606-3390
Email: john.mcsweeny@utoledo.edu

 

 

From the President's Corner



Neil Pliskin, PhD

Neil Pliskin, PhD
President, Society for Clinical Neuropsychology

As everyone knows or has experienced by now, healthcare delivery in the United States is undergoing a major transformation.  The passing of the Affordable Care Act has led to the formation of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) in many states.  One of the main ways the Affordable Care Act seeks to reduce health care costs is by encouraging doctors, hospitals and other health care providers to form networks which coordinate patient care and become eligible for bonuses when they deliver that care more efficiently.

This emphasis on coordinated or INTEGRATED CARE is already occurring in many medical centers, and it is changing the way that medicine (and neuropsychology) is being practiced.  While many of us “seasoned veterans” (#neuropsychologydinosaurs) are still working in our comfortable “silos” of clinical practice, it is highly likely that more of us will be practicing differently in a few years, and certainly the upcoming generation of neuropsychologists needs to understand and be prepared for changes in neuropsychology practice models.  Indeed, neuropsychologists working in institutions, medical centers and VAs will be increasingly “embedded” in multispecialty clinics with approaches to assessment shifting to shorter batteries, shorter reports and fast feedback.  The shifts in practice models is already occurring in some settings, with neuropsychologists working in primary care clinics, and specialty clinics (memory, geriatrics, pediatrics, diabetes, epilepsy) to name a few.

The most recent membership data about our Division indicate that we have 4754 members, of which 80% are licensed, 70% provide clinical services and 43% are in independent practice, so this topic is highly relevant to a majority of our Division members.  Therefore, I would like to learn more from members who are already involved in providing neuropsychology services in the context of integrated settings, and I would like to share this information over the course of the year with our early career psychologists and students who will be facing these challenges in their future.

Within the next several months, you will receive a survey inquiring about your experience with different models of integrated care in neuropsychology.  Please take the time to respond to the survey and share with our membership your experiences, and I will be sure to include updated information in the coming months through our blogs, newsletters and NeuroBlasts.  Additionally, a portion of SCN’s program at the upcoming 2015 APA convention in Toronto (August 6-9) will be devoted to presentations on Models of Integrated Care in Neuropsychology.  Please save the date and plan on attending the convention.

SCN colleagues, the era of integrated care creates new opportunities for providing services and for demonstrating our value in the world of healthcare. If you have comments, thoughts, suggestions or experiences you wish to share, I would welcome hearing from you during this year; please feel free to contact me (npliskin@uic.edu).

NeuroBlog: The Value of Student Involvement in Neuropsychology Governance

Cady Block, ANST Chair

 

Cady Block

When I was first asked to write a piece for our NeuroBlog, I immediately knew I wanted to write about a topic that I am very passionate about: student involvement in neuropsychology governance. My own journey into student governance has been a very rewarding one. When I began my doctoral work at UAB in 2008, another student and myself saw the need for representation of student interests in neuropsychology within our program. With some research and a little bit of luck, we found out that APA has a Division representing neuropsychology, and that this Division not only has a trainee organization (the Association of Neuropsychology Students in Training, or ANST) but that it sponsors a network of chapters. We began our own UAB chapter and it is still successful and thriving today.

I then became interested in issues impacting all trainees and wanted to become more involved in governance at the national level. I was elected as the national ANST Communications Officer, which was followed by being elected the national Chair for ANST. I find that both of these positions offered the opportunity to connect and network with other individuals who are passionate about improving the profession for current and our future colleagues, and to effect change at the national level. Student leadership has been a valuable experience for me, and I hope to share my excitement and passion with other trainees and create opportunities for others to become more involved. I know such an experience can seem very daunting to trainees, but I would encourage them by saying that becoming involved is actually easier than one might think and the rewards in return are countless! The Society for Clinical Neuropsychology and ANST have long fostered such an opportunity through our network of chapters housed at various doctoral programs throughout the country. Chapters are led by active, energetic trainees and offer an excellent entry into student leadership and can often open the door for later involvement to neuropsychology governance. In fact, one of our original two student founders of ANST – Michael Cole – is currently the head of the SCN Publications and Communications Committee! Our current SCN Communications Liaison and former ANST Chair, Erica Kalkut, also began as a chapter representative at her doctoral program.

I could continue on about the many, many benefits of becoming involved in student leadership and neuropsychology governance. However, I felt that the best people to speak to this are some of our wonderful chapter representatives. I offer my thanks and appreciation to each of them for their willingness to contribute to this NeuroBlog piece. I also offer my gratitude to the excellent people in SCN who make these experiences available to trainees. I hope you enjoy this piece!

Jesse Passler, University of Alabama at Birmingham         

 

Jesse Passler
 

It was very important to me to become involved with the ANST chapter at University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) as soon as possible. The importance of being a part of ANST leadership to me cannot be overstated. It has proven to be an excellent way to become integrated into the neuropsychology community at UAB as well as across the country. I have also found the support and knowledge of fellow ANST chapters (as well as ANST’s wonderful leadership!) to be such an appreciated resource in my professional development.

However, the most important experience I’ve garnered from the opportunity to serve in student governance is that of being continually humbled by the amazing people around me. I have always had aspirations to serve as a leader, both professionally and in the community. Stated simply, serving in a leadership role requires honesty, openness, and the challenge to adequately represent a group as a whole as opposed to any special or specific expertise. In this way, I have been honored to work alongside my fellow UAB ANST members in trying to ensure both an excellent professional and personal experience. I highly encourage this opportunity to other students; I hope that you’ll find, as I have, that better than growing personally or (in some small way) helping others to grow, is growing together.      

Dede Ukueberuwa, Pennsylvania State University

 

Dede Ukueberuwa

The key to getting involved in student leadership is being proactive, and the effort can lead to incredibly rewarding experiences for students. In addition to having an impact on the goals of the organization by sharing their expertise, students benefit from leadership opportunities when they are able to learn new skills and further develop their career interests. Joining a committee for a professional organization is a great way to meet and learn from clinical neuropsychologists at every career level and from different settings. However, many students may feel hesitant to pursue leadership positions. My first experience with leadership in graduate school was on the organizing committee for a student-run neuroscience interest group at Penn State, where I felt comfortable sharing ideas among peers. I also started a chapter of ANST at Penn State in order to foster a sense of community among students with a specialization in clinical neuropsychology and to provide a resource for professional development. I’ve also joined a committee for a national neuropsychological organization. Although I felt hesitant when first exploring leadership roles, I found that with each new role, I was more confident and able to be proactive in pursuing additional opportunities.

Once interested in gaining leadership experience, many students may feel uncertain about how to get started. Talking to an advisor or another faculty member in their program is a great first step. An advisor may be involved in professional organizations or know about committees that welcome student members. Talking to an advisor may also help students to assess their strengths and to build confidence in their ability to be a leader. Through the process of searching for opportunities, students learn about the work of different organizations, which then helps to further define their own interests – are they drawn to public education about clinical neuropsychology, advocating for legislature that promotes our mission, or reviewing research projects for publication or awards? Once students start to get involved, they will likely feel more comfortable sharing their skills and ideas, develop a sense of identity as a clinical neuropsychologist in training, and continue growth as a leader in the field.

Nick Bott, Palo Alto University

 

Nick Bott

Woody Allen has opined that 80% of success is showing up, and this resonates with my experience in becoming involved in leadership and governance of my program's ANST chapter. The current ANST leadership was transitioning out, and in speaking with one of the chapter reps at the end of a meeting, she asked me about ideas for how to strengthen the resources and opportunities that the chapter offers to students. Sharing some of my ideas turned into a conversation about becoming more involved in leadership and eventually led to my taking a leadership role as the ANST co-chapter rep for our program. 

Having served as co-chapter rep for two years now, I am so happy that I showed up. My time helping to lead our chapter has convinced me of the importance of leadership and governance as an integral part of graduate school education. Graduate work encompasses three spheres: clinical education, research, and involvement in the field of the profession. Often, one or two of these becomes the focus of a graduate student, to the exclusion of the other. And sadly, it is often involvement in the field that is first to go. But involvement in the field is incredibly important. Knowledge of the structures that govern and support the field, and the networks of professionals that provide leadership for these structures is an education in itself, and extremely valuable for your own professional development in the expansion of your professional network and your understanding of the issues that are facing our field. And the field shrinks incredibly once you start engaging in a professional leadership capacity. You also realize that the volunteerism of students and professionals is critical to supporting so many budding neuropsychologists, as well as supporting the profession as a whole. Without serving in a leadership capacity, you are much less likely to be exposed to this critical area within our field. So my recommendation: show up and see what happens!

Clinical Neuropsychology and Sports Concussion: Have We Come Full Circle?

William B. Barr, PhD, ABPP

William B. Barr, PhD, ABPP
Associate Professor of Neurology & Psychiatry,
NYU School of Medicine

This year marks the 20^th anniversary of the “modern era” in the study of concussion in sports, which began in 1994 following the retirements of Merrill Hoge and Al Toon and the National Football League’s (NFL) formation of its first Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee. Since that time, we have witnessed a marked shift from what was a pervasive attitude of denying or minimizing the effects of head injury in sport to one where stories of the current “concussion epidemic” or the controversy about long-term consequences of head injury in retired athletes appear in our newspapers on a daily basis. Over the same time period, the field of neuropsychology has received an unprecedented degree of public attention resulting from the fact that many in our field, including members of the Society of Clinical Neuropsychology (SCN), have provided important contributions to the scientific study of sports concussion and development of methods for its assessment. My goal in this SCN NeuroBlog is to provide a brief review and critique of neuropsychology’s role in the clinical management of sports concussion with suggestions on how we can maintain our position as leaders with regard to this highly publicized injury.

At the beginning of concussion’s modern era, it was not uncommon to hear statements from other health professionals that we were in the infancy in the study of the head injury and without any available scientific information to guide clinical management. Any practicing neuropsychologist at that time knew that this was not the case. We were well aware that Dorothy Gronwall and her colleagues in New Zealand had published a number of groundbreaking studies during the 1970’s, using neuropsychological methods for tracking information-processing capacity following minor head injury.  During the 1980’s, Jeffrey Barth, Sureyya Dikmen, and Harvey Levin and colleagues had all conducted a number of important investigations in the United States using neuropsychological test batteries to characterize outcomes in mild head injured subjects. The results of those studies demonstrated that recovery from milder forms of head injury was characterized by a complex interaction of cognitive, somatic, and emotional factors with the expression of symptoms influenced significantly by a range of psychosocial factors.

Armed with the findings from studies listed above, clinical neuropsychologists were well prepared in the 1980’s and 1990’s to conduct a comprehensive assessment of symptoms in patients they encountered following what was eventually termed as mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). Many at that time continued to use the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery for evaluation of these patients. However, an increasing number of practitioners began to use a more flexible approach to neuropsychological assessment, with test batteries comprised of measures of intelligence, attention, executive functions, and memory. It is important to note that, most clinicians were also including measures of symptom reporting in their test batteries, using standardized measures such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and its descendants.  While the clinical batteries often took numerous (3-6) hours to complete, they provided the most effective means known at that time for evaluating symptoms in patients with MTBI.

Neuropsychology’s approach to head injury received a substantial boost in the late 1980’s following research performed by Barth, Macciocchi and colleagues at the University of Virginia, who developed the methodology for obtaining empirical data on concussion through controlled prospective studies of athletes following head injury. Their model of data collection, now known as the Sports Laboratory Assessment Model (SLAM) consisted of obtaining preseason neuropsychological test data to serve as a baseline in athletes at risk for sustaining a concussion during competition and repeating the same tests in injured athletes and matched controls on a serial basis to measure the effects of the injury and its pattern of recovery. Among the major findings from early studies using the SLAM methodology were that neuropsychological tests were established as being sensitive to the effects of concussion and that those effects were observed to clear rather rapidly, within a period of 5 to 10 days, in the vast majority of cases.

Given the fact that results from standard imaging and electrophysiological studies were usually negative in athletes following concussion, the hope in the beginning of the modern era of sports concussion management was that neuropsychological testing would provide most effective means for assessing symptoms during recovery. The SLAM methodology was promptly adapted for clinical use by a number of neuropsychologists working primarily with collegiate and professional football teams. Brief test batteries were assembled and administered to entire teams through large-scale baseline testing programs. The length of the test batteries was kept to less than 30 minutes, understanding the need to limit the time burden for the athletes and the assessment team. The test batteries were limited in contents to measures of attention, processing speed, and memory, while also including a brief measure of post-concussion symptoms. The belief was that, due to athletes’ reputed tendency to minimize symptoms, information from the neurocognitive tests administered serially following injury would provide the most accurate means for tracking the effects of the injury and marking the time course of its recovery.

The baseline testing programs in sports began with the use of paper-pencil tests that were readily available to all licensed neuropsychologists. However, those tests were soon replaced by computerized test batteries developed specifically for assessment of concussion symptoms in athletes, which were promoted and sold via a large-scale marketing campaign to physicians, certified athletic trainers, and other clinicians in addition to neuropsychologists. The computerized tests were claimed by their developers to provide an advantage over the paper-pencil tests by providing a more sensitive, reliable, and efficient means of assessing concussion symptoms. Through substantial media exposure, the brand names of computerized tests became synonymous with baseline testing in sports, with the science and methodology of clinical neuropsychology relegated to a less prominent role.

While sportscasters, the media, and the public at large were emphasizing the use of baseline testing in sports, there was a controversy developing within the field of neuropsychology regarding its ultimate benefits. Some investigators began to question the increasing use of this methodology, given the lack of empirical support, particularly from investigative teams that were independent of the test developers. This was followed by studies, emerging over time, demonstrating that information from neuropsychological tests added little to the assessment of acute post-concussion symptoms compared to what was obtained through a more brief form of sideline testing using a combination of symptom questionnaires, balance measures, and a brief screen of cognitive functioning.

Results from other investigations began to show that many of the tests used for serial testing in athletes demonstrated unacceptably low levels oftest-retest reliability in addition to disappointing levels of sensitivity/specificity for detecting the effects of concussion. The validity of the baseline test performance came into question when measures were administered on a group basis, as suggested by the manufacturers. Athletes began to realize the benefits of underperforming on baseline testing so that the effects of concussion would be obscured on repeat testing following injury, affecting the validity of a growing number of baseline assessments. Further complications began to emerge from the fact that practitioners without adequate training in psychometrics and brain-behavior relations were often the ones obtaining the test results following injury, causing them in many cases to make serious interpretive errors. Based on these findings and trends, an international panel of experts on concussion in sports concluded in statements published in 2012 that, “there is insufficient evidence to recommend the widespread routine use of baseline neuropsychological testing.”

Turning to what we have learned over the past 20 years, there has been a convergence of information obtained through studies of animal models and humans indicating that the acute physiological effects and symptoms associated with concussion resolve within 7-10 days in the vast majority (80%-95%) of injured athletes, upholding the findings originally reported much earlier by University of Virginia group. While cognitive deficits are known to be present during the acute time period, neuropsychological testing does not appear to be the optimal choice for assessment at that time, since symptoms can be monitored effectively through briefer sideline test procedures using the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT-3).

However, as most neuropsychologists know, there are those individuals, including athletes, who continue to report symptoms well beyond the window of typical recovery from concussion. These individuals, exhibiting symptoms of what we term as post-concussion syndrome (PCS), create clinical conundrums for most clinicians involved in concussion management. I argue that this is the group on whom neuropsychologists should be focusing attention.  As a result of neuropsychologists’ unique combination of training and use of empirically advanced assessment techniques, we are the group of professionals who can provide the most valuable input for diagnosis and management for of individuals with PCS.

Investigators focusing on the search for the elusive biomarker of concussion often ignore the fact that the diagnosis of concussion and subsequent PCS is based primarily on a subject’s subjective account of his or her symptoms. We are well aware that the reporting of those symptoms can be affected substantially by a number of “non-injury” factors. To begin with, research has shown that those with PCS commonly experience co-morbid conditions such as mood disorder, chronic pain, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or the effects of somatization, all of which can result symptoms overlapping with those commonly reported in PCS. We are also aware that a number of “normal” psychological factors secondary to misattribution of symptoms, including “expectation as etiology”, the “diagnosis threat”, and the “good old days” phenomenon can influence symptom expression in that group. We are likely to be seeing an increase in the frequency of these misattribution phenomena as a result of increased availability of information related to concussion available through the popular media and Internet. Using our strengths in clinical assessment, neuropsychologists are in an excellent position to serve as those members of the treatment team who are in the best position to identify and treat the co-morbid conditions and other important “non-injury” factors that can influence the reporting of PCS symptoms in athletes and other groups.

My belief is that the optimal time for a referral to clinical neuropsychologists in a sports concussion setting is not immediately following the injury, but when the athlete is continuing to report symptoms for a period of 14-days or more. At that relatively early time point, he or she will have passed through the typical period of symptom recovery but will have not yet reached the critical juncture when PCS symptoms have become chronic and possibly intractable in nature. A comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation using tests of cognitive functioning, self-report, and performance validity performed at that time will provide the clinician with valuable diagnostic data and information to guide recommendations for subsequent intervention. As demonstrated in clinical studies, early identification and treatment of the co-morbid conditions and psychological factors provides the most effective means known for preventing the development of long-term PCS symptoms.

In conclusion, while we can admire our field’s initial attempt to offer neuropsychological testing as the primary tool for tracking the acute symptoms of concussion in athletes, it is time to admit that these watered-down test batteries did not end up being as useful as we had hoped.  My opinion is that clinical neuropsychologists can now play a more important and useful role in the management of sports concussion by going back to where we were 20 years ago by providing evaluations of athletes using more comprehensive test batteries prior to development of chronic PCS symptoms. I am not suggesting that we return to the use of 3-6 hour test batteries with all of these athletes. We can clearly benefit from advances in test development and clinical studies of concussion to narrow our test batteries down to less than two hours, including the use of a comprehensive symptom measure such as the MMPI-2-RF. In the end, returning to the  “psychology” in neuropsychology will enable us to provide a unique perspective to the modern treatment team that has evolved for assessment and treatment of sports concussion and help many of our athletes obtain the services they need to reach a full and successful recovery.